The Karnataka High Court has unequivocally affirmed that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, is a gender-neutral statute. This pivotal ruling explicitly clarifies that a woman can be prosecuted for the offence of penetrative sexual assault against a minor boy, a finding that challenges and overturns deeply entrenched legal and societal biases. The judgment arises from a criminal petition filed by a 52-year-old woman seeking to quash allegations of sexual assault against a minor boy.
The landmark ruling was delivered in the case of Archana Patil vs State of Karnataka. The petitioner, a 52-year-old woman identified as an artist, was accused of multiple instances of sexual assault against a minor boy. The alleged incidents occurred between May and June 2020, when the victim was approximately 13 years and 10 months old. The charges against the petitioner were filed under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, which pertain to the offences of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
The woman had allegedly taken the boy to her home on several occasions and subjected him to repeated acts of sexual assault. The matter came to light after the child’s parents lodged a complaint, following which an FIR was registered in June 2020.
Petitioner's Argument
POCSO is not gender-neutral; only men can be perpetrators of penetrative sexual assault.
Women are passive participants in sexual acts, therefore incapable of committing the offense.
The case should be quashed due to the non-conduct of a potency test on the victim.
While, the Court’s analysis extended that the POCSO Act is a progressive, gender-neutral statute. The term "person" in Section 3 is inclusive of both genders. The Court cited Section 8 of the IPC, which mandates that the pronoun "he" can be used for any person, male or female.
Justice Rajendra Badamikar, who authored the judgment, underlined that the legislative intent of POCSO was to “safeguard childhood itself” rather than focus only on the identity of the offender. The Court made it clear that nothing in the statute exempts women from being prosecuted as offenders if the act falls within the definition of sexual assault.
The Court also cited a recent precedent from the Madras High Court in Kajendran J. vs State (2024), which held that such tests are not required in a routine manner in sexual offence cases.
The Karnataka High Court also rejected the contention that the absence of a potency test on the boy undermined the case, observing that POCSO offences are defined around the act of assault itself, not the sexual capability of the victim.
The Court's ruling further, deeply resonant with fundamental constitutional guarantees. By affirming the gender-neutral application of the POCSO Act, the judgment aligns with the constitutional mandates of Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination).
Legal experts have noted that this ruling fills a crucial gap in the interpretation of POCSO, as courts in the past have often operated under the assumption that perpetrators of penetrative sexual assault are male. By explicitly stating that women, too, can be prosecuted under Sections 4 and 6, the Karnataka High Court has reinforced the child-centric nature of the law.
The court also emphasised that the primary object of POCSO is to protect children below 18 years of age from sexual offences, and therefore the identity of the perpetrator is secondary to the protection of the victim.
(Rh/Eth/SG/MSM)